Comments for Atheism http://www.atheismuk.com Atheism Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:24:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Book promotion talk by crabsallover http://www.atheismuk.com/2012/01/12/events/book-promotion-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-598 crabsallover Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:24:50 +0000 http://www.atheismuk.com/?p=5115#comment-598 Ok It_zippy2 will do. Chris Street Ok It_zippy2 will do.

Chris Street

]]> Comment on A Day to Defend Free Expression by Gordon1961 http://www.atheismuk.com/2012/01/29/events/a-day-to-defend-free-expression/comment-page-1/#comment-597 Gordon1961 Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:35:44 +0000 http://www.atheismuk.com/?p=5124#comment-597 Hi Lacy - thought I'd make further comment. So please be forgiving. On the whole charities, in this case Christian, do not get state funding therefore have to get tax relief on the voluntary contributions given by it's supporter's. If the tax relief was withdrawn then a lot of Christian charities would go out of business. The work they do would then have to be done by the state which does not have the finances, especially in this present financial climate, to do this. Or else put up taxes. Can you elaborate on the sexual mutilation -I'm at a loss to understand what you mean. Science and faith are compatible. Science helps us to understand God's creation ( another debate all together ). If I remember your earlier comments correctly you do study and? Marvel at nature which is part of God's creation. Indulge me a little please. Would you be willing to read a part of the Bible mainly Psalm 8 and Psalm 19 and see that nature points us to God. Hope this helps. Hi Lacy – thought I’d make further comment. So please be forgiving.
On the whole charities, in this case Christian, do not get state funding therefore have to get tax relief on the voluntary contributions given by it’s supporter’s. If the tax relief was withdrawn then a lot of Christian charities would go out of business. The work they do would then have to be done by the state which does not have the finances, especially in this present financial climate, to do this. Or else put up taxes.
Can you elaborate on the sexual mutilation -I’m at a loss to understand what you mean.
Science and faith are compatible. Science helps us to understand God’s creation ( another debate all together ). If I remember your earlier comments correctly you do study and? Marvel at nature which is part of God’s creation. Indulge me a little please. Would you be willing to read a part of the Bible mainly Psalm 8 and Psalm 19 and see that nature points us to God.
Hope this helps.

]]> Comment on Book promotion talk by lt_zippy2 http://www.atheismuk.com/2012/01/12/events/book-promotion-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-596 lt_zippy2 Mon, 20 Feb 2012 07:38:04 +0000 http://www.atheismuk.com/?p=5115#comment-596 My rest day has just been cancelled out from under me, so I am now unlikely to be able to attend....therefore, if there is a waiting list please allocate my seat to someone else! Ta! My rest day has just been cancelled out from under me, so I am now unlikely to be able to attend….therefore, if there is a waiting list please allocate my seat to someone else!

Ta!

]]> Comment on A Day to Defend Free Expression by Lacey http://www.atheismuk.com/2012/01/29/events/a-day-to-defend-free-expression/comment-page-1/#comment-594 Lacey Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:25:38 +0000 http://www.atheismuk.com/?p=5124#comment-594 Hi, To clarify I need no help but thank you for the attempt. I will make this reply shorter. - Charity - Christians are given tax relief for far more than their charitable needs. There is no charitable behaviour performed by a Christian that can not also be done by an atheist (thank Hitchens for pointing that out so well). Christians are not given relief in the name of charity in all cases. We pay for them because of an outdated system. 'if all faith groups drop out of the charity sector....' What kind of comment is this? Why would you stop? For what reason are you performing charity in the first place? -Science - It is possible to be faithful and take part in scientific practices as science is based on studying the observable universe. However faith and science are utterly incompatible in a true sense - the presence of religious faith without reason or observation by its nature is unscientific. - Yes you have completely misunderstood me or I have written badly. I would simply never exclude any human being from having the potential to enter government - except perhaps those with a criminal background. I think you should read more closely. -Circumcision is the mildest (?) form of genital mutilation I would mention here. But it is mutilation. Or shall we start chopping off other parts of babies should another crackpot suggest it.... In order to please.... Someone else's imaginary friend. - I will leave the discussion now. I feel perhaps Graham was correct, the concerns you had, have been addressed. Also I came to this website to hear from minds I do not have to suffer normally. Anyway best of luck and I hope that you continue your charitable work even in the unlikely event that your organisations tax relief is revoked. Hi,
To clarify I need no help but thank you for the attempt. I will make this reply shorter.
- Charity – Christians are given tax relief for far more than their charitable needs. There is no charitable behaviour performed by a Christian that can not also be done by an atheist (thank Hitchens for pointing that out so well). Christians are not given relief in the name of charity in all cases. We pay for them because of an outdated system. ‘if all faith groups drop out of the charity sector….’ What kind of comment is this? Why would you stop? For what reason are you performing charity in the first place?
-Science – It is possible to be faithful and take part in scientific practices as science is based on studying the observable universe. However faith and science are utterly incompatible in a true sense – the presence of religious faith without reason or observation by its nature is unscientific.
- Yes you have completely misunderstood me or I have written badly. I would simply never exclude any human being from having the potential to enter government – except perhaps those with a criminal background. I think you should read more closely.
-Circumcision is the mildest (?) form of genital mutilation I would mention here. But it is mutilation. Or shall we start chopping off other parts of babies should another crackpot suggest it…. In order to please…. Someone else’s imaginary friend.
- I will leave the discussion now. I feel perhaps Graham was correct, the concerns you had, have been addressed. Also I came to this website to hear from minds I do not have to suffer normally. Anyway best of luck and I hope that you continue your charitable work even in the unlikely event that your organisations tax relief is revoked.

]]> Comment on A Day to Defend Free Expression by Gordon1961 http://www.atheismuk.com/2012/01/29/events/a-day-to-defend-free-expression/comment-page-1/#comment-593 Gordon1961 Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:55:27 +0000 http://www.atheismuk.com/?p=5124#comment-593 Hello again. Lacy just looked at your comments again. Well thought out. But the state does give taxrelief to charity which we as Christians help other eg soup runs or the Street Pastors which we have here in Aberdeen. I think this along with Bishops in the House of Lords etc is more to do with tradition and history than to do with being a Christian nation. I've possibly picked you up wrongly but you suggest Christians should be involved with politics for the better of society but yet in the last sentence you claim to look forward to a sercular society but where would those of faith fit in? If All faith groups withdraw from the charity / voluntry sector then the state would then have to plck up the bill or put up taxes. Am I making some sense here. ( no comments pleaseGraham). Circumsism I would not class as mutilation more of a religious tradition. It can also be a recommended proper medical procedure. Hope this helps a bit Lacy. Hello again.
Lacy just looked at your comments again. Well thought out. But the state does give taxrelief to charity which we as Christians help other eg soup runs or the Street Pastors which we have here in Aberdeen. I think this along with Bishops in the House of Lords etc is more to do with tradition and history than to do with being a Christian nation.
I’ve possibly picked you up wrongly but you suggest Christians should be involved with politics for the better of society but yet in the last sentence you claim to look forward to a sercular society but where would those of faith fit in? If All faith groups withdraw from the charity / voluntry sector then the state would then have to plck up the bill or put up taxes. Am I making some sense here. ( no comments pleaseGraham). Circumsism I would not class as mutilation more of a religious tradition. It can also be a recommended proper medical procedure.
Hope this helps a bit Lacy.

]]> Comment on A Day to Defend Free Expression by Gordon1961 http://www.atheismuk.com/2012/01/29/events/a-day-to-defend-free-expression/comment-page-1/#comment-592 Gordon1961 Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:14:59 +0000 http://www.atheismuk.com/?p=5124#comment-592 Sorry folks I would like to come back in. Lacy you are doing very well in my opinion. We will obviously never agree but at least you are thinking, investigating and most of all discussing in a calm, reasonable manner the basis of your views. That is all we Christians are asking for instead of being shouted down by the Professor Dawkins of this world. Science is fantastic and practice by those of faith as well as those without. But guess who does not think that science and faith are compatible. As already mentioned the comment on the news yesterday about we're too inteligent to have an imaginary friend!!! I am trying to keep this short so your other well made points are covered by the books recommended. Graham you are doing yourself and your cause no good by using sarcasam and put downs to win an arguement which you have clearly now lost. As I've tried to advise you by being so "negative" towards those who disagree, in this case Christians, will never win a discussion. As for comparing faith to a hobby suggests you have not investigaged what faith is and how important it is. I note your latest "comments" come after being corrected about the Jewish schoolar. Can I suggest you check out things before you comment. I did - went onto the internet to check out the facts BEFORE posting. Or were you trying to peddle another "myth" that no "real" evidence exsists for Jesus being a real person. Therefore if He does not exsist then then Christianity is false? I was almost away to make a sarcastic comment but better practice what I preach - do'nt want to be accused of hypocracy! Sorry folks I would like to come back in.

Lacy you are doing very well in my opinion. We will obviously never agree but at least you are thinking, investigating and most of all discussing in a calm, reasonable manner the basis of your views. That is all we Christians are asking for instead of being shouted down by the Professor Dawkins of this world. Science is fantastic and practice by those of faith as well as those without. But guess who does not think that science and faith are compatible. As already mentioned the comment on the news yesterday about we’re too inteligent to have an imaginary friend!!!
I am trying to keep this short so your other well made points are covered by the books recommended.
Graham you are doing yourself and your cause no good by using sarcasam and put downs to win an arguement which you have clearly now lost. As I’ve tried to advise you by being so “negative” towards those who disagree, in this case Christians, will never win a discussion. As for comparing faith to a hobby suggests you have not investigaged what faith is and how important it is. I note your latest “comments” come after being corrected about the Jewish schoolar. Can I suggest you check out things before you comment. I did – went onto the internet to check out the facts BEFORE posting. Or were you trying to peddle another “myth” that no “real” evidence exsists for Jesus being a real person. Therefore if He does not exsist then then Christianity is false? I was almost away to make a sarcastic comment but better practice what I preach – do’nt want to be accused of hypocracy!

]]> Comment on A Day to Defend Free Expression by Lacey http://www.atheismuk.com/2012/01/29/events/a-day-to-defend-free-expression/comment-page-1/#comment-591 Lacey Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:30:20 +0000 http://www.atheismuk.com/?p=5124#comment-591 Hi again all, I see the argument is continuing. I will add a couple more pennies as this is the first time I have debated about any subject on the internet and I am finding it interesting and in some cases confusing. I understand that you both no longer wish to discuss it, but if you change your mind I will be glad to hear your thoughts. Thank you Gordon for your comments. I did find them somewhat confusing as I feel you would perhaps not have been so accommodating if you had truly understood what I had said. I will however address your other comments. I do apologise to Graham if you feel I am going off topic but some points are too important to miss. Firstly it is not necessary to be very well versed on the various religions to be an atheist. I suspect as you do that many devout followers do not know their own religion well and they follow it blindly. In fact many religions rely on the fact their followers are hesitant thinkers and throughout history have preferred to use fear as their motivator. Atheists are not a group of people in the way that say Christians are. We are individuals without a belief system in God or Gods – or a supernatural force. I feel it is important for you to understand this because every time I speak with a religious person they wish to go through the details of everything in their book and somehow they feel that if anything written in it could have in any way occurred in history then the whole thing must be true. For me (only for me I cannot speak for atheists as a whole) this results in hours of wasted time. The nature of not believing in God(s) goes so far past this. It relies an on a basic and I believe natural way of observing the Universe as it actually is. I believe Dawkins explains this well and it is based on the concepts of logic and reason. We always associate science with clever people with letters after their name and white coats. But the truth is scientific principles are an instinctive part of the human mind. Our propensity for observation and experimentation is part of what has enabled us to become so successful as a species and as I mentioned before these skills are also not unique to our species. Another piece of information to contradict the human and particularly the devout believers' superiority complex. Our very desire for explanations of the world around us is one of the key elements as to why religion exists at all. When we do not know the answers fear drives us to 'make it up' to provide comfort. We may not even be aware we are doing so. They are often so critically created for the needs of the expresser (for example observe the masculine nature of religion). In my experience the atheist has no such need and finds no comfort in false testimony. An observation of the world around us and and especially an understanding of human need and desire is all a person may need to be an atheist. If a person was to study even part of a religious text or even witness certain religious ceremonies - they would be witness enough fundamentally unethical ideologies/behaviour unsettle them. Please do not confuse or belittle other atheists if you feel they may not be learned enough for you, they have enough knowledge purely by being human to make up their own mind and they are your equal. As are we all and no one has all the answers. With equality in mind I turn to your topic. You are simply not being persecuted in this country. As said by Graham before me it is integrated into this country in many ways. In ways, in my opinion - it should not be. Is it necessary to state them all? Government, monarchy, council tax and so on? I pay for the church bells to keep ringing. I have to - by law. I will not even go into the tax relief the churches receive. It is essential that the Government of this country is secular and I am not sure you understand why. I am sure you agree it is important that the people we elect to run our country - whose decisions deeply affect our life - are fair and work for the interests of all. Importantly their reasoning should be expressed openly, with clarity and actions taken should be taken with ethical consideration and care. There is absolutely no reason why any person of 'faith' or 'no faith' could do this - any human has this capacity. The concern is that if someone was in a seat of power because they are religious - they would not have everybody's interest in mind and would assert power in accordance to a religious dogma. It is not ethical to act upon your own personal beliefs in order to control people. Critically this means issues may not be dealt with based on the importance of human action in the here and now. You said yourself 'Hopefully I have not said or implied that godless people cannot be responsible or good in a legal or traditional sense but that will not ever be good enough for God hence Jesus etc.'. Of course I disagree with this. In order for action to be ethical we must consider the well-being of our fellow people in the today. If someone is serving in the interests of an 'afterlife' they will not be concerned with acting ethically or morally now. Although I understand you may feel the book you read is highly moral (your God even more so) - it simply is not - even in the fact that religion both over-emphasizes our importance and also condemns our very nature (that is meant to be God-given). Why you dislike yourselves so deeply I will never understand - but that is a subject for another day! Furthermore and this is my concern is that someone of deep religious faith simply will not be ethical and fair because of certain beliefs and practices. Some of which are abhorrent. I would not trust someone to make important decisions on health or education for example who believes it is right to sexually disfigure children (please see clip of Hitchens debating with a Rabbi on circumcision - it is profound). I could describe more but it actually upsets me. Of course we can never tell whether anyone is acting in our best interests (especially when it comes to politicians) but we hardly need to add more personal motivation to the mix. Again unlike what you said - there is nothing wrong with a Christian acting in government - but it should not be 'because' they are Christian or 'for' a Christian agenda. I hope you understand why I see it that way. Lastly (I know I talk too much I am trying to become more succinct so thank you for sticking with it) I must say I am finding the terms of militant atheism and militant secularism a little unfair and offensive. You are not being shouted down by anyone or quieted in any way. May I remind to that they very brave and patient Professor Richard Dawkins is a scientist on television. Not a government employee (as far as I am aware) and as yet has no ability to change public policy nor power to silence the religious. Every time I have seen him appear on television he has done so in the presence of an opposing view (usually with far more religious representatives I will add) and further even on his own television programmes he provides the opportunity for another point of view. It is gives me satisfaction that his voice is so evidently being widely heard. As of now Christianity has places of power within this country and I hope this will one day change. Through adult respectful conversation we will hopefully come to a point where our state is truly secular and we can begin to focus on the problems we have in the here and now. Hi again all,
I see the argument is continuing. I will add a couple more pennies as this is the first time I have debated about any subject on the internet and I am finding it interesting and in some cases confusing. I understand that you both no longer wish to discuss it, but if you change your mind I will be glad to hear your thoughts.
Thank you Gordon for your comments. I did find them somewhat confusing as I feel you would perhaps not have been so accommodating if you had truly understood what I had said. I will however address your other comments. I do apologise to Graham if you feel I am going off topic but some points are too important to miss.
Firstly it is not necessary to be very well versed on the various religions to be an atheist. I suspect as you do that many devout followers do not know their own religion well and they follow it blindly. In fact many religions rely on the fact their followers are hesitant thinkers and throughout history have preferred to use fear as their motivator. Atheists are not a group of people in the way that say Christians are. We are individuals without a belief system in God or Gods – or a supernatural force.
I feel it is important for you to understand this because every time I speak with a religious person they wish to go through the details of everything in their book and somehow they feel that if anything written in it could have in any way occurred in history then the whole thing must be true. For me (only for me I cannot speak for atheists as a whole) this results in hours of wasted time. The nature of not believing in God(s) goes so far past this. It relies an on a basic and I believe natural way of observing the Universe as it actually is.
I believe Dawkins explains this well and it is based on the concepts of logic and reason. We always associate science with clever people with letters after their name and white coats. But the truth is scientific principles are an instinctive part of the human mind. Our propensity for observation and experimentation is part of what has enabled us to become so successful as a species and as I mentioned before these skills are also not unique to our species. Another piece of information to contradict the human and particularly the devout believers’ superiority complex. Our very desire for explanations of the world around us is one of the key elements as to why religion exists at all. When we do not know the answers fear drives us to ‘make it up’ to provide comfort. We may not even be aware we are doing so. They are often so critically created for the needs of the expresser (for example observe the masculine nature of religion). In my experience the atheist has no such need and finds no comfort in false testimony.
An observation of the world around us and and especially an understanding of human need and desire is all a person may need to be an atheist. If a person was to study even part of a religious text or even witness certain religious ceremonies – they would be witness enough fundamentally unethical ideologies/behaviour unsettle them. Please do not confuse or belittle other atheists if you feel they may not be learned enough for you, they have enough knowledge purely by being human to make up their own mind and they are your equal. As are we all and no one has all the answers.
With equality in mind I turn to your topic. You are simply not being persecuted in this country. As said by Graham before me it is integrated into this country in many ways. In ways, in my opinion – it should not be. Is it necessary to state them all? Government, monarchy, council tax and so on? I pay for the church bells to keep ringing. I have to – by law. I will not even go into the tax relief the churches receive. It is essential that the Government of this country is secular and I am not sure you understand why.
I am sure you agree it is important that the people we elect to run our country – whose decisions deeply affect our life – are fair and work for the interests of all. Importantly their reasoning should be expressed openly, with clarity and actions taken should be taken with ethical consideration and care. There is absolutely no reason why any person of ‘faith’ or ‘no faith’ could do this – any human has this capacity. The concern is that if someone was in a seat of power because they are religious – they would not have everybody’s interest in mind and would assert power in accordance to a religious dogma. It is not ethical to act upon your own personal beliefs in order to control people. Critically this means issues may not be dealt with based on the importance of human action in the here and now. You said yourself ‘Hopefully I have not said or implied that godless people cannot be responsible or good in a legal or traditional sense but that will not ever be good enough for God hence Jesus etc.’. Of course I disagree with this. In order for action to be ethical we must consider the well-being of our fellow people in the today. If someone is serving in the interests of an ‘afterlife’ they will not be concerned with acting ethically or morally now. Although I understand you may feel the book you read is highly moral (your God even more so) – it simply is not – even in the fact that religion both over-emphasizes our importance and also condemns our very nature (that is meant to be God-given). Why you dislike yourselves so deeply I will never understand – but that is a subject for another day!
Furthermore and this is my concern is that someone of deep religious faith simply will not be ethical and fair because of certain beliefs and practices. Some of which are abhorrent. I would not trust someone to make important decisions on health or education for example who believes it is right to sexually disfigure children (please see clip of Hitchens debating with a Rabbi on circumcision – it is profound). I could describe more but it actually upsets me. Of course we can never tell whether anyone is acting in our best interests (especially when it comes to politicians) but we hardly need to add more personal motivation to the mix. Again unlike what you said – there is nothing wrong with a Christian acting in government – but it should not be ‘because’ they are Christian or ‘for’ a Christian agenda. I hope you understand why I see it that way.
Lastly (I know I talk too much I am trying to become more succinct so thank you for sticking with it) I must say I am finding the terms of militant atheism and militant secularism a little unfair and offensive. You are not being shouted down by anyone or quieted in any way. May I remind to that they very brave and patient Professor Richard Dawkins is a scientist on television. Not a government employee (as far as I am aware) and as yet has no ability to change public policy nor power to silence the religious. Every time I have seen him appear on television he has done so in the presence of an opposing view (usually with far more religious representatives I will add) and further even on his own television programmes he provides the opportunity for another point of view. It is gives me satisfaction that his voice is so evidently being widely heard. As of now Christianity has places of power within this country and I hope this will one day change. Through adult respectful conversation we will hopefully come to a point where our state is truly secular and we can begin to focus on the problems we have in the here and now.

]]> Comment on Reason Rally…Are You Going? by Graham Martin-Royle http://www.atheismuk.com/2011/12/10/events/reason-rally-are-you-going/comment-page-1/#comment-590 Graham Martin-Royle Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:50:49 +0000 http://www.atheismuk.com/?p=4907#comment-590 Try as hard as I can, I am unable to get to this. I've got the day off work but unfortunately I am working the next day and can't get that off. Washington DC to UK and then straight to work is a bit too much. Pity. Try as hard as I can, I am unable to get to this. I’ve got the day off work but unfortunately I am working the next day and can’t get that off. Washington DC to UK and then straight to work is a bit too much. Pity.

]]> Comment on A Day to Defend Free Expression by Graham Martin-Royle http://www.atheismuk.com/2012/01/29/events/a-day-to-defend-free-expression/comment-page-1/#comment-589 Graham Martin-Royle Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:05:06 +0000 http://www.atheismuk.com/?p=5124#comment-589 As anyone who has met me or knows me will testify, I am not an accomodationist. Gordon1961 is an almost perfect personification as to why. His first post was a pathetic dumbass comment about how free speech should also be extended to christians, as if christians didn't have free speech. All he has done since is play the martyr. He has had it proven that he is not being persecuted, but will not acknowledge the fact, he has had it proven that he has free speech and expression but will not acknowledge the fact, he has had it proven that he is asking for special privilege for his religion but will not acknowledge the fact. He tries to dictate the argument, telling others how they must conduct themselves when dealing with his, oh so precious hobby, refuses to stay on track on the discussion and only wants to talk about what he considers important. Typical faithist really. Let's face it, for all the effort I put in, I may as well have been talking to a wall or a plank of wood. Gordon1961 is still going on that he feels his hobby is being persecuted, marginalised and that he can't talk freely about it. I've seen more comprehension of what's going on in the world in a house brick, more brain activity in road kill. I have no doubts that, like so many of his kind, he'll now go back to his church, complaining bitterly about how he was shouted down, not allowed to speak, stopped from putting his point across, by those nasty, shrill, strident atheists. Maybe if he had used his brain a little more, you know, that calcified lump of matter between his ears that he's had washed so many times by preachers, he would be able to understand the world as it is, and how it's not as he imagines it. He might then understand just what an irritating little tick he is and why he winds people up so much. As anyone who has met me or knows me will testify, I am not an accomodationist. Gordon1961 is an almost perfect personification as to why. His first post was a pathetic dumbass comment about how free speech should also be extended to christians, as if christians didn’t have free speech. All he has done since is play the martyr. He has had it proven that he is not being persecuted, but will not acknowledge the fact, he has had it proven that he has free speech and expression but will not acknowledge the fact, he has had it proven that he is asking for special privilege for his religion but will not acknowledge the fact. He tries to dictate the argument, telling others how they must conduct themselves when dealing with his, oh so precious hobby, refuses to stay on track on the discussion and only wants to talk about what he considers important. Typical faithist really.
Let’s face it, for all the effort I put in, I may as well have been talking to a wall or a plank of wood. Gordon1961 is still going on that he feels his hobby is being persecuted, marginalised and that he can’t talk freely about it. I’ve seen more comprehension of what’s going on in the world in a house brick, more brain activity in road kill.
I have no doubts that, like so many of his kind, he’ll now go back to his church, complaining bitterly about how he was shouted down, not allowed to speak, stopped from putting his point across, by those nasty, shrill, strident atheists.
Maybe if he had used his brain a little more, you know, that calcified lump of matter between his ears that he’s had washed so many times by preachers, he would be able to understand the world as it is, and how it’s not as he imagines it. He might then understand just what an irritating little tick he is and why he winds people up so much.

]]> Comment on Book promotion talk by Mark Embleton http://www.atheismuk.com/2012/01/12/events/book-promotion-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-588 Mark Embleton Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:47:47 +0000 http://www.atheismuk.com/?p=5115#comment-588 This event is now full and we can't take any more bookings, thanks. This event is now full and we can’t take any more bookings, thanks.

]]>